Bartl v. Kenyon

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Bartl v. Kenyon

552 N.W.2d 730, 1996 WL 529338

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedSeptember 19, 1996

DocketNo. C2-95-2207

StatusPublished

This text of 552 N.W.2d 730 (Bartl v. Kenyon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bartl v. Kenyon, 552 N.W.2d 730, 1996 WL 529338 (Mich. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed on behalf of plaintiffs Joseph F. Bartl, et al. for further review of the decision of the Court of Appeals filed June 11, 1996 be, and the same is, granted for the purpose of reversing that decision and reinstating the judgment entered in the Otter Tail County District Court in favor of the plaintiffs. The trial court’s findings of fact that consideration was paid annually for the continuation of the lease agreement, that the terms of the lease were not unconscionable and that the original grantor did not lack the requisite capacity to execute the lease are not clearly erroneous; the trial court’s judicial declaration that the lease agreement was valid and enforceable is affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alexander M. Keith A.M. Keith Chief Justice

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed on behalf of plaintiffs Joseph F. Bartl, et al. for further review of the decision of the Court of Appeals filed June 11, 1996 be, and the same is, granted for the purpose of reversing that decision and reinstating the judgment entered in the Otter Tail County District Court in favor of the plaintiffs. The trial court’s findings of fact that consideration was paid annually for the continuation of the lease agreement, that the terms of the lease were not unconscionable and that the original grantor did not lack the requisite capacity to execute the lease are not clearly erroneous; the trial court’s judicial declaration that the lease agreement was valid and enforceable is affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alexander M. Keith A.M. Keith Chief Justice

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

552 N.W.2d 730, 1996 WL 529338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartl-v-kenyon-minn-1996.